Compiler construction Martin Steffen March 13, 2017 Contents 1 - - PDF document

Compiler construction

Martin Steffen March 13, 2017

Contents

1 Abstract 1 1.1 Symbol tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1.2 Symbol table design and interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.1.3 Implementing symbol tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1.4 Block-structure, scoping, binding, name-space organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1.1.5 Symbol tables as attributes in an AG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2 Reference 14

1 Abstract

Abstract This is the handout version of the slides. It contains basically the same content, only in a way which allows more compact printing. Sometimes, the overlays, which make sense in a presentation, are not fully rendered here. Besides the material of the slides, the handout versions may also contain additional remarks and background information which may or may not be helpful in getting the bigger picture.

1.1 Symbol tables

• 6. 3. 2017

1.1.1 Introduction Symbol tables, in general

• central data structure
• “data base” or repository associating properties with “names” (identifiers, symbols)1
• declarations

– constants – type declarationss – variable declarations – procedure declarations – class declarations – . . .

• declaring occurrences vs. use occurrences of names (e.g. variables)

1Remember the (general) notion of “attribute”.

1

Does my compiler need a symbol table?

• goal: associate attributes (properties) to syntactic elements (names/symbols)
• storing once calculated: (costs memory) ↔ recalculating on demand (costs time)
• most often: storing preferred
• but: can’t one store it in the nodes of the AST?

– remember: attribute grammar – however, fancy attribute grammars with many rules and complex synthesized/inherited at- tribute (whose evaluation traverses up and down and across the tree): ∗ might be intransparent ∗ storing info in the tree: might not be efficient ⇒ central repository (= symbol table) better

• 1. So: do I need a symbol table? In theory, alternatives exists; in practice, yes, symbol tables needed;

most compilers do use symbol tables. 1.1.2 Symbol table design and interface Symbol table as abstract date type

• separate interface from implementation
• ST: basically “nothing else” than a lookup-table or dictionary,
• associating “keys” with “values”
• here: keys = names (id’s, symbols), values the attribute(s)
• 1. Schematic interface: two core functions (+ more)
• insert: add new binding
• lookup: retrieve
• 2. Rest besides the core functionality:
• structure of (different?) name spaces in the implemented language, scoping rules
• typically: not one single “flat” namespace ⇒ typically not one big flat look-up table2
• ⇒ influence on the design/interface of the ST (and indirectly the choice of implementation)
• necessary to “delete” or “hide” information (delete)

Two main philosophies

• 1. Traditional table(s)
• central repository, separate from AST
• interface

– lookup(name), – insert(name,decl), – delete(name)

• last 2: update ST for declarations and when entering/exiting blocks
• 2. declarations in the AST nodes
• do look-up ⇒ tree-/search/
• insert/delete: implicit, depending on relative positioning in the tree
• look-up:

– potential lack of efficiency – however: optimizations exist, e.g. “redundant” extra table (similar to the traditional ST)

• 3. Rest Here, for concreteness, declarations are the attributes stored in the ST. In general, it is not

the only possible stored attribute. Also, there may be more than one ST.

2Neither conceptually nor the way it’s implemented.

2

1.1.3 Implementing symbol tables Data structures to implement a symbol table

• different ways to implement dictionaries (or look-up tables etc)

– simple (association) lists – trees ∗ balanced (AVL, B, red-black, binary-search trees) – hash tables, often method of choice – functional vs. imperative implementation

• careful choice influences efficiency
• influenced also by the language being implemented,
• in particular, by its scoping rules (or the structure of the name space in general) etc.3

Nested block / lexical scope for instance: C

{ int i ; . . . ; double d ; void p ( . . . ) ; { int i ; . . . } int j ; . . .

more later Blocks in other languages

• 1. T

EX

\def\x{a} { \def\x{b} \x } \x \bye

• 2. L

AT

EX

\ documentclass { a r t i c l e } \newcommand{\x}{a} \begin{document} \x {\renewcommand{\x}{b} \x } \x \end{document}

• 3. Rest But: static vs. dynamic binding (see later)

Hash tables

• classical and common implementation for STs
• “hash table”:

– generic term itself, different general forms of HTs exists – e.g. separate chaining vs. open addressing4

3Also the language used for implementation (and the availability of libraries therein) may play a role (but remember

“bootstrapping”)

4There exists alternative terminology (cf. INF2220), under which separate chaining is also known as open hashing. The

• pen addressing methods are also called closed hashing. That’s how it is.

3

• 1. Separate chaining
• 2. Code snippet

{ int temp ; int j ; real i ; void s i z e ( . . . . ) { { . . . . } } }

Block structures in programming languages

• almost no language has one global namespace (at least not for variables)
• pretty old concept, seriously started with ALGOL60
• 1. Block
• “region” in the program code
• delimited often by { and } or BEGIN and END or similar
• organizes the scope of declarations (i.e., the name space)
• can be nested
• 2. Rest

Block-structured scopes (in C)

int i , j ; int f ( int s i z e ) { char i , temp ; . . . { double j ; . . } . . . { char ∗ j ; . . . } }

Nested procedures in Pascal

program Ex ; var i , j : integer function f ( s i z e : integer ) : integer ; var i , temp : char ; procedure g ; var j : real ; begin . . . end ; procedure h ; var j : ^char ;

4

begin . . . end ; begin (∗ f ’ s body ∗) . . . end ; begin (∗ main program ∗) . . . end .

Block-strucured via stack-organized separate chaining

• 1. C code snippet

int i , j ; int f ( int s i z e ) { char i , temp ; . . . { double j ; . . } . . . { char ∗ j ; . . . } }

• 2. “Evolution” of the hash table

5

Using the syntax tree for lookup following (static links)

lookup ( string n) { k = current , surrounding block do // search for n in decl for block k ; k = k . s l // one nesting l e v e l up until found

• r k == none

}

Alternative representation:

• arrangement different from 1 table with stack-organized external chaining
• each block with one own hash table.5
• standard hashing within each block
• static links to link the block levels

⇒ “tree-of-hashtables”

• AKA: sheaf-of-tables or chained symbol tables representation

5One may say: one symbol table per block, as this form of organization can generally be done for symbol tables data

structures (where hash tables is just one of many possible implementing data structures).

6

1.1.4 Block-structure, scoping, binding, name-space organization Block-structured scoping with chained symbol tables

• remember the interface
• look-up: following the static link (as seen)6
• Enter a block

– create new (empty) symbol table – set static link from there to the “old” (= previously current) one – set the current block to the newly created one

• at exit

– move the current block one level up – note: no deletion of bindings, just made inaccessible Lexical scoping & beyond

• block-structured lexical scoping: central in programming languages (ever since ALGOL60 . . . )
• but: other scoping mechanism exists (and exist side-by-side)
• example: C++

– member functions declared inside a class – defined outside

• still: method supposed to be able to access names defined in the scope of the class definition (i.e.,
• ther members, e.g. using this)
• 1. C++class and member function

class A { . . . int f ( ) ; . . . // member function } A : : f ( ) {} // def .

• f

f ‘ ‘ in ’ ’ A

• 2. Java analogon

class A { int f ( ) { . . . } ; boolean b ; void h ( ) { . . . } ; }

Scope resolution in C++

• class name introduces a name for the scope7 (not only in C++)
• scope resolution operator ::
• allows to explicitly refer to a “scope”’
• to implement

– such flexibility, – also for remote access like a.f()

6The notion of static links will be encountered later again when dealing with run-time environments (and for analogous

purposes: identfying scopes in “block-stuctured” languages).

7Besides that, class names themselves are subject to scoping themselves, of course . . .

7

• declarations must be kept separatly for each block (e.g.
• ne hash table per class, record, etc.,

appropriately chained up) Same-level declarations

• 1. Same level

(a) Code

typedef int i int i ;

(b) Explanation

• often forbidden (e.g. in C)
• insert: requires check (= lookup) first
• 2. Sequential vs. “collateral” declarations

(a) Sequential in C

int i = 1 ; void f ( void ) { int i = 2 , j = i +1, . . . }

(b) Collateral in ocaml/ML/Lisp

let i = 1 ; ; let i = 2 and y = i +1;; print_int ( y ) ; ;

Recursive declarations/definitions

• for instance for functions/procedures
• also classes and their members
• 1. Direct recursion

int gcd ( int n , int m) { i f (m == 0) return n ; else return gcd (m, n % m) ; }

• before treating the body, parser must add gcd into the symbol table.
• 2. Indirect recursion/mutual recursive def’s

void f ( void ) { . . . g () . . . } void g ( void ) { . . . f () . . . }

8

Mutual recursive defintions

void g ( void ) ; /∗ function prototype decl . ∗/ void f ( void ) { . . . g () . . . } void g ( void ) { . . . f () . . . }

• different solutions possible
• Pascal: forward declarations
• or: treat all function definitions (within a block or similar) as mutually recursive
• or: special grouping syntax
• 1. ocaml

let rec f (x : i n t ) : i n t = g ( x+1) and g ( x : i n t ) : i n t = f (x +1);;

• 2. Go

func f ( x int ) ( int ) { return g ( x ) +1 } func g ( x int ) ( int ) { return f (x ) −1 }

Static vs dynamic scope

• concentration so far on:

– lexical scoping/block structure, static binding – some minor complications/adaptations (recursion, duplicate declarations, . . . )

• big variation: dynamic binding / dynamic scope
• for variables: static binding/ lexical scoping the norm
• however: cf. late-bound methods in OO

Static scoping in C

• 1. Code snippet

#include <s t d i o . h> int i = 1 ; void f ( void ) { p r i n t f ( "%d\n" , i ) ; } void main ( void ) { int i = 2 ; f ( ) ; return 0 ; }

• 2. Rest
• which value of i is printed then?

9

Dynamic binding example

1

void Y () {

2

int i ;

3

void P() {

4

int i ;

5

. . . ;

6

Q( ) ;

7

}

8

void Q(){

9

. . . ;

10

i = 5 ; // which i i s meant?

11

}

12

. . . ;

13 14

P( ) ;

15

. . . ;

16

}

for dynamic binding: the one from line 4 Static or dynamic?

• 1. T

EX

\def\ a s t r i n g {a1} \def\x{\ a s t r i n g } \x { \def\ a s t r i n g {a2} \x } \x \bye

• 2. L

AT

EX

\ documentclass { a r t i c l e } \newcommand{\ a s t r i n g }{a1} \newcommand{\x}{\ a s t r i n g } \begin{document} \x { \renewcommand{\ a s t r i n g }{a2} \x } \x \end{document}

• 3. emacs lisp (not Scheme)

( setq a s t r i n g "a1" ) ; ; ‘ ‘ assignment ’ ’ (defun x () a s t r i n g ) ; ; define ‘ ‘ v a r i a b l e x ’ ’ ( x ) ; ; read value ( let (( a s t r i n g "a2" )) (x ))

Static binding is not about “value”

• the “static” in static binding is about

– binding to the declaration / memory location, – not about the value

• nested functions used in the example (Go)
• g declared inside f

10

package main import ( "fmt" ) var f = func () { var x = 0 var g = func () {fmt . P r i n t f ( "␣x␣=␣%v" , x)} x = x + 1 { var x = 40 // l o c a l v a r i a b l e g () fmt . P r i n t f ( "␣x␣=␣%v" , x)} } func main () { f () }

Static binding can be come tricky

package main import ( "fmt" ) var f = func () ( func ( int ) int ) { var x = 40 // l o c a l v a r i a b l e var g = func (y int ) int { // nested function return x + 1 } x = x+1 // update x return g // function as return value } func main () { var x = 0 var h = f () fmt . Println (x ) var r = h (1) fmt . P r i n t f ( "␣ r ␣=␣%v" , r ) }

• example uses higher-order functions

1.1.5 Symbol tables as attributes in an AG Expressions and declarations: grammar

• 1. Nested lets in ocaml

let x = 2 and y = 3 in ( let x = x+2 and y = ( let z = 4 in x+y+z ) in print_int (x+y ))

• 2. Rest
• simple grammar (using , for “collateral” declarations)

S → exp exp → (exp ) ∣ exp +exp ∣ id ∣ num ∣ let dec -list in exp dec -list → dec -list , decl ∣ decl decl → id=exp Informal rules governing declarations

• 1. no identical names in the same let-block
• 2. used names must be declared

11

• 3. most-closely nested binding counts
• 4. sequential (non-simultaneous) declaration (/

= ocaml/ML/Haskell . . . )

let x = 2 , x = 3 in x + 1 (∗ no , d u p l i c a t e ∗) let x = 2 in x+y (∗ no , y unbound ∗) let x = 2 in ( let x = 3 in x ) (∗ decl . with 3 counts ∗) let x = 2 , y = x+1 (∗ one a f t e r the

• ther

∗) in ( let x = x+y , y = x+y in y )

• 1. Goal Design an attribute grammar (using a symbol table) specifying those rules. Focus on: error

attribute. Attributes and ST interface symbol attributes kind exp symtab inherited nestlevel inherited err synthesis dec -list,decl intab inherited

• uttab

synthesized nestlevel inherited id name injected by scanner

• 1. Symbol table functions
• insert(tab,name,lev): returns a new table
• isin(tab,name): boolean check
• lookup(tab,name): gives back level8
• emptytable: you have to start somewhere
• errtab: error from declaration (but not stored as attribute)

Attribute grammar (1): expressions

8Realistically, more info would be stored, as well (types etc)

12

• note: expression in let’s can introduce scope themselves!
• interpretation of nesting level: expressions vs. declarations9

Attribute grammar (2): declarations Final remarks concerning symbol tables

• strings as symbols i.e., as keys in the ST: might be improved
• name spaces can get complex in modern languages,
• more than one “hierarchy”

– lexical blocks – inheritance or similar – (nested) modules

• not all bindings (of course) can be solved at compile time: dynamic binding
• can e.g. variables and types have same name (and still be distinguished)
• overloading (see next slide)

Final remarks: name resolution via overloading

• corresponds to “in abuse of notation” in textbooks
• disambiguation not by name, but differently especially by “argument types” etc.
• variants :

– method or function overloading – operator overloading – user defined?

9I would not have recommended doing it like that (though it works)

13

i + j // i n t e g e r addition r + s // real −addition void f ( int i ) void f ( int i , int j ) void f (double r )

2 Reference References

[Louden, 1997] Louden, K. (1997). Compiler Construction, Principles and Practice. PWS Publishing. 14

Index

abstract syntax tree, 2 acyclic graph, 19 attribute grammars, 4 attribution rule, 6 binding, 2 DAG, 19 directed acyclic graph, 19 grammar L-attributed, 21 graph cycle, 19 l-attributed grammar, 21 linear order, 19 partial order, 19 semantic rule, 6 topological sorting, 19 total order, 19 type, 2 15